And even there you have to scratch your head. The jury decided to accept Samsung's 12% profit margin figure on the accused devices, but bumped it up (for some reason) to 14%.

So wait... they awarded damages equal to all of Samsung's profit margin (and maybe a bit more) as compensation for lost sales to Apple.

So they're saying that everyone who bought a Samsung phone would have bought an iPhone instead? Even those who bought the cheaper phones, or those on different carriers?

Actually they are not saying that. If you read what Andrew H. quoted in post #14, they weren't convinced that Apple would have been able to manufacture the extra smartphones. I think that the problem is the fact that Apple's profit margin is much higher than Samsung's.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graham

I'll admit though that although his general point stands, I'd like to know how he estimates a quarter of a million patents infringed per device.

I wouldn't be surprised by that number. Think of all the patents for the different components, and the fact that each action that the software is capable of has been patented by someone.

Actually they are not saying that. If you read what Andrew H. quoted in post #14, they weren't convinced that Apple would have been able to manufacture the extra smartphones.

That was the reason that they didn't go with the full damages figure proposed by Apple. But the reason they went for the $1.05 billion figure was due to their taking Samsung's profit margin figure as I described.

In the evidence, Apple had declared that Samsung had cost them in profits 35% of their revenue. On the other hand, Samsung said that it is because they took out operating costs and the value is 12%. Three of us had been through the process in our careers of dealing with financial documents. I understood P&L statements as well as the other to. What we did was look at it against our matrix of what infringed and what did not. We determined that in our experience, the percentage was not 12%, and it certainly was not 35%. It should be closer between 13% to 15%. We zeroed in on 14%. That became the magic number. Then we did our own calculations for each of the areas, adding those up with royalties that were entitled for some of the items. And we cut that value in half. When we added them together and tallied them up, that is the number we came up with.

This was based on Samsung's sales figures for the accused devices of about $8 billion. Apple claimed that Samsung's profit margin was 35%, Samsung said it was nearer 12%.

In the US jurisprudence, the court is the determinator of law, the jury is the determinator of the facts.

Appeals can only be based on error of law, or suppression of facts (whether deliberate or unintentional. An unintentional suppression example is DNA evidence used to overturn wrongful convictions. The technology didn't exist at the time of conviction.). This may or may not require a retrial.

Jury findings are not appealable (unless deliberate malfeasance is proven). Jury finding in opposition of law are know to occur often. It's nicknamed (in Texas) as Jury Nullification...

LOL, what a great metric! Next time I go to the grocery, I'm going to whine that a good filet costs more than the average meat value.

Also, gotta love how some people think comments made out of court by a juror after the trial can be grounds for an appeal.

Nobody will question a filet that is 100, 200, or 300 times higher than the average meat market average. But 30,000?

The comments by the jury themselves are obviously not grounds for appeal. However, since there are questions regarding how the jury conducted deliberations you better believe this will be taken into consideration during appeal.

The LOL part of this whole trial is when Apple's Phil Schiller said in court "Customers can get confused on whose product is whose."

Seriously? This is how Apple views the the intelligence of the average Apple consumer?

No one bought a Samsung phone because they were confused and thought that they had purchased an Apple iphone. They bought the Apple phone because they wanted it, and they bought the Samsung phone because they wanted that one.

That was the reason that they didn't go with the full damages figure proposed by Apple. But the reason they went for the $1.05 billion figure was due to their taking Samsung's profit margin figure as I described.
[...]
This was based on Samsung's sales figures for the accused devices of about $8 billion. Apple claimed that Samsung's profit margin was 35%, Samsung said it was nearer 12%.

No, if Apple wouldn't have been able to make the extra smartphones, then they didn't lose as much revenue, so the value should have been less than the percentage that is accepted. For example if Apple would have been able to make only half of the devices, than the compensation should be 50% of 12% (if they take Samsung's figure), so only 6% of the revenues.

No, if Apple wouldn't have been able to make the extra smartphones, then they didn't lose as much revenue, so the value should have been less than the percentage that is accepted. For example if Apple would have been able to make only half of the devices, than the compensation should be 50% of 12% (if they take Samsung's figure), so only 6% of the revenues.

You're right that given the jury's statement that's what they should have done. But it seems clear to me from Hogan's interview that whether or not Apple had sufficient stock didn't figure in their final calculation.

You're right that given the jury's statement that's what they should have done. But it seems clear to me from Hogan's interview that whether or not Apple had sufficient stock didn't figure in their final calculation.

Graham

I was talking about this quote:

Quote:

However, Hogan said Apple's damages demand of up to $2.75 billion were "extraordinarily high," partly because it was unclear whether Apple had enough component supply to sell more phones even if it had wanted to.

FIGURING DAMAGES

Apple's damages expert testified that Samsung earned margins of roughly 35.5 percent on the products at issue in the lawsuit, on $8.16 billion in revenue. However, Hogan said they thought Apple's percentage did not properly take into account many other costs identified by Samsung.

Samsung's damages expert testified the margin should be closer to 12 percent, and the jury picked a number slightly above that, Hogan said.

"We wanted to make sure the message we sent was not just a slap on the wrist," Hogan said. "We wanted to make sure it was sufficiently high to be painful, but not unreasonable."

The jury considered that the value requested by Apple doesn't take some costs into account, and decided for some unspecified reason to ignore the value estimated by Samsung, instead they went with their experience above the facts presented (what you quoted in post #35). And then, despite the fact that according to the instructions they were supposed to offer compensation for the loss of revenue, they disregarded the fact that Apple's losses are lower by the limitations of the stock.

But would you go into a shop wanting an iPhone and accidentally buy a Samsung? And then not realise and not take it back? Bear in mind that the packaging has Samsung in big letters, and no mention of Apple or iPhone. I find it hard to believe that anyone wanting an iPhone wouldn't know it was made by Apple.

And again, that image is the one supplied by Apple. There are plenty of references around to previous designs not quite so cherry-picked and of prototypes much closer to the iPhone look. It's clear that Samsung filtered their designs based on the iPhone's success, but the crux of the case was whether there was sufficient prior art to invalidate Apple's design patent for that look.

I went through the actual patents earlier today. Interestingly, although the button and speaker grill are marked on the front panel patent they are in dotted lines with a note 'not part of the claim'. This does give credence to Samsung's argument that Apple have been allowed to patent a rectangle with rounded corners in black with a silver trim.

And if the button is included (as it appears to be in a later patent) how is that relevant when the accused Samsung devices have either three or four buttons along the bottom, not one?

Graham

Last edited by Graham; 08-30-2012 at 12:22 PM.
Reason: 'grill', not 'grilled'...